@ … @TheScienceFoundation I’m afraid I am less conversant on these subjects than you are. The source points out the process not being connected to natural selection and his logic seems reasonable to me. I know it interferes with your paradigm, but that is the point of the quotation.

@ … @TheScienceFoundation Apparently, Foundation, you didn’t read the quotation. Selection didn’t have anything to do with it.

It is possible that, once a trait is acquired through non-natural selection processes, the bacteria passes on the acquired trait through “lateral transfer” in some sort of “evolution,” but that doesn’t explain how vertebrates could pass on traits.

@MorganMarvinson … @MorganMarvinson Lenkis Cit+ E. Coli would only mutate the trait again after around the 75% generation time mark, meaning that another crucial mutation occurred in that period which was passed on via drift. Not sure where you’re getting there was no trial and error.

@MorganMarvinson No … @MorganMarvinson No, not the whole population at once, the whole population replicates and mutates and if one develops a resistance to a chemical or the ability to metabolize a new food source, then that trait will be passed on via selection.

… generations … … generations before the trait was acquired. So what exactly is random about the acquisition of the ability to use citrate? The bacteria were raised in a laboratory so natural selection was not a factor, meaning any useless trait could have evolved and the bacteria’s chances of surviving would be the same as those without the trait. However, the bacteria not only evolved a useful trait without trial and error, but repeated the evolution starting from earlier generations,

@ … @TheScienceFoundation There you go. The whole population works like the Borg to develop resistance. (Spetner, 175; Lenski)

“The bacteria suddenly and unpredictably evolved the ability to metabolize citrate–a nutrient that E. coli normally cannot use. Lenski then took frozen ancestors of the population that had acquired the ability and thawed them to see if the same change would take place over again, and it did (Homes, 2008), showing that the changes which resulted in the new trait began …

@ … @TheScienceFoundation He makes perfect sense. If you MEAN random mutation can improve the code, then this is what you get. He is right. You may BELIEVE it’s something else.

What the evolutionist is actually doing is invoking the god of natural selection to be able to reach inside the DNA and tweak it for conditions outside the organism. But there is no computer terminal for the DNA on the outside of the organism and the only thing natural selection knows how to do is KILL what doesn’t work.

This guy isn’t just … This guy isn’t just an idiot creationist, he is a scammer, if you look into it you find that he wrote on manipulation of google adwords, and has also talked about manipulating the google search algorithm.

If you google his name and things related to it, you will simply find alot of results that proclaim he is right, and by no means a scammer. This is a sure sign of a scam.

This is another … This is another stupid, sorry for the ad hominium attack, of a christian lack of understanding of what evolution is and how it works. Mutations though random are not the sole bases of evolution the key word is SELECTION. If the mutaion works then the organism thrives if the mutation is not viable then the organism dies. Please do not show your ignorance. Please study the subject your trying to disprove.
Ignorace is bliss.

mammals do not … mammals do not share ERVs with other clases of animals, as we would expect if all living things share a common ancestor. this fact alone refutes the argument on ERVs.

besides, if current observations show that genomes are getting simpler as time passes, then evolution is simply wrong. ERVs fossils, DNA, vestigial organs etc. are all secondary evidence, irrelevant if direct evidence contradict evolution

Anyone who actually … Anyone who actually tries to understand biology is already an evolutionist. It’s already a fact that modern species descended from common ancestors, genetics alone makes this clear.